How do poor rural and urban schools build a successful inclusive
school community when they have insufficient resources and are
located in impoverished communities? Dr. Rich Gibson, recently
met with a group of students and teachers at Detroit City High
School, an alternative school. In talking with the students, he
discovered that most believed that they would likely not live
beyond the age of twenty. Many of the teachers shared that they
would not want to be alive with these kids as adults. Shockingly,
both teachers and students harbor images of death as their preferable
option (Gibson, 1996). Rather than walk away, how can inclusive
educators embrace such a challenge?

One of the greatest problems in poor communities is the frequent
loss of a positive vision of the future. It seems that the media,
university research, and government agencies conspire to paint
negative pictures of neighborhoods and schools while ignoring
the powerful capacities that exist within each. In such situations,
families, community members, teachers, and children themselves
all too frequently develop these self-destructive images of their
own lives and their communities (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993;
McKnight, 1995; McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994; Melaville,
& Blank, 1993). How do we respond to this loss of hope?

Many schools, across urban and rural settings, are constrained
by very limited resources (fiscal, personnel, etc.) and high levels
of poverty. Such conditions of economic injustice create barriers
that make it especially challenging to build successful inclusive
schools and communities. Jonathon Kozol, in his book Savage
Inequalities (1991), presented clear pictures regarding the
tremendous inequities that exist in schools within our urban cities,
bringing to life the statistical realities of budgets and test
scores. Similar inequities exist in rural areas as well. Thus,
effective inclusive community builders must focus on: (1) addressing
issues of inequity at the building level, and (2) developing methods
of effectively using existing resources. Both elements are critical
for children in poor schools and communities. How do we simultaneously
address the issues of inequity and develop methods of effectively
using existing resources in order to build inclusive schools and
communities?

Responding to these questions is critical if inclusive education
is not yet to be another discussion about the middle and upper
classes that subverts the very concept of "inclusion."
Not untypical of other educational and community reform movements,
it is clear that inclusive education is largely a white, middle-class
phenomenon where segregation of students by class, race, and ability
is much more likely on both ends of the socio-economic spectrum
­ rich and poor. Inclusive education must go beyond a framework
that is limited by disability and build inclusive schools for
ALL students. Those who embrace inclusive education must stretch
themselves to understand and deal with the dynamics of exclusion
based on issues of poverty, neglect, and social injustices of
all kinds.

However, such a task will not be easy. The fact is that the
largest recipients of inclusive educational practices are white
and middle-class. Leaders in the inclusive education movement
are largely European Americans working largely in white middle-class
schools. In recognition of this fact, the U.S. Department of Education
(1997) funded a National Center for Urban Inclusion in the fall
of 1997. We cannot simply replicate the overall social pattern
of exclusion based on race and socio-economic status that have
become so predominant in recent years. Yet, that is indeed what
has happened, however unintentionally. Thus, it is time to broaden
our concern, impact, and commitment to building inclusive communities
in poor rural and urban schools.

Towards this end, we attempt to raise awareness and call inclusive
education advocates to action by: (1) articulating a vision of
inclusive schooling for poor schools; (2) providing examples of
several poor urban and rural schools who are in the process of
implementing their vision; (3) identifying the multiple barriers
that often impede their vision; (4) developing strategies for
overcoming the barriers and achieving the vision; (5) articulating
the commonalities and differences between poor rural and urban
schools; and (6) describing strategies for embracing the challenge
to create more inclusive school communities in poor rural and
urban areas.

Whole Schooling: A Vision for Rural and Urban Schools

Change grows from a vision of the future. Where there is no
vision, there is no change. Consequently, it is vital that inclusive
community builders in poor rural and urban schools work together
to craft their vision of who they want to be as a community and
the type of society in which they choose to live. Envisioning
and building better urban and rural schools and communities is
not about experts creating solutions, although experts can provide
technical skills, support, and information. Rather, it is about
creating mechanisms for engaging school personnel and community
members in creating alternative, positive future visions for themselves
(Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).

In poor urban and rural schools, we posit a vision of inclusion
and academic excellence for children. Thus, we have developed
a visionary framework called "whole schooling" (refer
to Table 1) that seeks to merge best practices in educational
excellence with inclusive education practices (Peterson, M. &
Beloin, K., 1997). The "whole schooling" framework
has emerged out of our work, analysis, experience, and belief
that "inclusive education for students with exceptional educational
needs does not contradict nor is it in tension with the best practices
in education; rather, best educational practices and inclusive
education are complementary, reinforcing, and strengthening to
one another."

Learning together places inclusive education for all
learners with special needs at the center of school reform that
includes detracking separate classes for all types of learners
from students with severe disabilities to students who are bilingual
(Fitzgerald, Garrett, Glodoski, Knox, & Pelzek, 1996; Healey,
1997; Maeroff, 1993; Oakes, 1985).

Support focuses on building support and community for
students and teachers. It includes the realignment of special
education, bilingual, Title 1, and gifted personnel to engage
in collaborative teaching with regular education teachers. Focus
intentional efforts on building community among students, teachers,
and administration in the neighborhood school (Felner, Aber,
Primavera, & Cauce, 1985; Wang & Gordon, 1994; Wehlage,
Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989).

Adapting involves developing accommodations for students
with special needs using a range of strategies.

Partnering focuses on engaging in genuine collaboration
& partnerships with families and the community in order to
strengthen both the school and community (Center for the Future
of Children, 1992; Dryfoos, 1994; McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman,
1994; Melaville, & Blank, 1993).

The uniqueness of the "whole schooling" vision and
framework is that it combines the work of school reform coalitions
in poor areas that have focused on: becoming a citizen in a democracy,
teaching well, support and partnerships (including the Comer
model of school development, Accelerated Schools, Coalition
of Essential Schools, and Success for All) with inclusive
education reform that has focused on learning together, supports,
adaptations, and partnerships. In a study conducted by The National
Center for Education Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI), several
key components of successful inclusive education programs were
identified, including the need for supports for students, collaborative
relationships, and effective family involvement (Lipsky &
Gartner, 1994). Increasingly, reformers in both arenas are recognizing
their areas of commonality. In 1996 and 1997, conferences were
held in New Hampshire and in Denver that drew together representatives
of overall school reform and inclusive education.

While inclusive education and the implementation of best educational
practices are essential for all schools, both are particularly
critical in poor urban and rural schools. We turn now to the descriptions
two low- income communities who are in the process of implementing
their vision for creating a whole inclusive school.

Detroit: An Urban Experience in Working Towards
Inclusive Education

Like many large, urban school districts, the Detroit Public
Schools are just beginning to move towards inclusive education.
Detroit's beginning efforts are instructive regarding the barriers,
challenges, and strategies for change in a large, complex system.
Detroit is the 9th largest city in the United States with a population
slightly over 1 million people. The metropolitan area has been
described as the most ethnically and socio-economically diverse
and segregated city in the country. This places efforts towards
inclusive education for students with disabilities in a challenging
context. Overall, in 1994, Detroit Public Schools had 175,239
students of which approximately 17,000 were students with disabilities
(Detroit Public Schools, 1996). Some 11,000 of these students
with special needs (approximately 64%) received special education
services in self-contained settings. The vast majority of students
with moderate to severe disabilities are placed in separate special
schools. These include students who experience deafness, moderate
mental retardation, and severe disabilities. Some students with
moderate or severe disabilities attend separate classrooms in
regular schools, but such placements are the exception. Students
with mild disabilities are typically educated in special education
classrooms within regular schools.
Over the last five years the "central office" has taken
steps to provide recognition of inclusive education. However,
the most clear evidences of change are coming from the grassroots
efforts of educators in local buildings who are developing connections
and relationships with university faculty. The 1994 Strategic
Plan (Detroit Public Schools, 1994) for district level special
education services identified expansion of "inclusionary
options" as one key component of improving the quality of
educational services. The prime strategy toward this end has been
the development of increased numbers of "resource rooms"
throughout the district. More recently, the central office has
directed a system-wide effort to align the special education curriculum
with the general education curriculum. As an increasing number
of parents are becoming aware of inclusive education as an option
for their children, they are requesting inclusive placements and
support services in IEP's. Hearings on this issue are dramatically
increasing. Administrative leadership towards inclusive education
in Detroit has occurred in a complex political environment in
which the fourth school superintendent in 8 years resigned under
duress in the fall of 1997 and a major reorganization of the system
is in process that is intended to substantially decentralize decision-making.
Given the enormous changes that inclusive education implies, special
education administration has proceeded cautiously.

Beginning building-based change

In some buildings throughout the district there is some evidence
that teachers and principals are becoming more aware of and interested
in exploring inclusive education. These include: Head Start, Bellevue
Elementary School; and Western International High School.

Since 1972 Head Start in Detroit Public Schools has included
a range of children with disabilities with training and support
for teachers from the Disabilities Services staff. For several
years, Disability Services and Mental Health Coordinator, Carol
Beaman and her colleagues have been quietly including students
with disabilities in Head Start programs. This has not come easily
and there have been many challenges. Working in a system where
segregation is the norm, she has provided training, technical
assistance, and consultation with teachers to help them develop
skills and strategies for including children with disabilities.
Fortunately, she has had strong support from administration in
the early childhood program.

The impact in Head Start programs has been significant and
has established a foundation upon which additional inclusion in
early childhood programs and elementary schools may naturally
build. Of the 1938 children enrolled in Detroit Public Schools
Head Start program in the 1997-98 school year, 205 children were
enrolled with diagnosed disabilities, slightly over the federally
mandated 10% of enrollment. These children are included in regular
Head Start classes with services from special education. However,
approximately 70% of these children are eligible for Speech and
Language Services only. Currently collaborative efforts are being
developed with Head Start teachers and special education teachers
in specific buildings in the District to develop a more inclusive
environment for children who require more intensive support and
services. At present, many 3 year-old children with more severe
disabilities leave the district's Early Intervention Diagnostic
Center and move into separate special education classes or classrooms.
Collaborative efforts are being developed with the local university
to assist and support the expansion of efforts to move these children
into a more least restrictive environment.

Bellevue Elementary School is located on Detroit's Eastside
in an impoverished area of the city. The school principal and
a committee of the school's improvement team, in collaboration
with faculty at Wayne State University, have committed to developing
Bellevue Elementary as a "model elementary inclusive education"
program for the district. It has taken many years to lay the foundation
for building an effective, student and a family-centered school
in this very low-income area. Bellevue Elementary School has engaged
in many innovations that include: the use of inquiry approaches
to school improvement based on the Accelerated Schools model,
innovations in curriculum and student supports, and building connections
with local services supporting parents and families. The school
has a multi-racial staff and has set goals for teachers centering
their teaching and work on the needs of children with exceptional
educational needs. The plan for building an inclusive school is
building on this foundation and will proceed over the next three
years.

Western International High School

At the high school level, special education services are largely
delivered in pull out resources rooms or, more frequently, in
separate special education classrooms. Western International High
School, however, has made a commitment to building a multi-cultural
model of inclusive education in one of the cities poorest and
most culturally diverse areas. Over time, the department head
of special education, has built support among the administrative
team for a school-wide vision for inclusive education that includes
the following elements:

o elimination of special education as it is currently

o involvement of students and parents in the life of the whole
school

o excitement on the part of the whole school, people pushing
to move faster

o connection of the school to the life of the community

o recognition of the school at the national level as a model
of multicultural, inclusive education

Western International High School is located on the Southwest
side of Detroit in what is called Mexican Town. The school population
includes a very heterogeneous racial and ethnic mix of both students
and staff. The school is located in an area that includes many
people with low incomes and struggles with the typical problems
of urban youth including low student academic achievement. At
Western International High School, 18 out of 40 total teachers
are presently "regular education" teachers. Twenty-two
are special teachers of various sorts. This provides both a challenge
and an opportunity. If all of the students with exceptional educational
needs were included, with supports from existing teachers in pull-out
classrooms, the overall student-teacher ratio could be reduced
by one-third. In a school district with an average of 35 students
in a class, such a move has potential to make major impacts. On
the other hand, to do so requires a major shift in how teachers
and schools conceive education and support for students with special
needs.

The special education department head and her colleagues have
been learning and building a base of support for changing from
a pull-out model of special education services to inclusive education.
She developed the vision based on the conviction that special
education, as it presently exists, does not work. She and her
staff have discussed this and this past summer developed the plan
for Inclusion 2000 for Western International High School.

This department head has worked for over 8 years to build support
among special education staff, develop allies with the principal,
teachers, counselor, and others, and gradually reduce the isolation
of the special education programs and the students they serve.
This has involved several changes. In order to prepare the staff
of Western International High School for inclusion, she felt it
was necessary for the Special Education Department to stop being
all things to the students with special learning needs. One of
the first things that they did was to change the name to the Exceptional
Education Department. This name change was designed to help reduce
the stigma that had been associated with the term "special
education." Another thing of great importance was the letting
go of the exclusive responsibility for students with exceptional
educational needs and involving the Counseling and Guidance Department
in advising. The Counseling Department became responsible for
the academic program of the child with exceptional needs. Each
child was assigned a counselor, as were all other students, and
the counselor provided each child with the same benefits as the
general education student. The special teacher became an advisor
to the counselor and when necessary reviewed and approved the
program. The special education teachers then became part of the
"mainstream" accepting the same responsibilities as
the regular education teachers. The special teachers stopped being
all things to the students with special needs.

School discipline was another area that had to be addressed.
It took tremendous effort to have the members of the administrative
team use the Student Code of Conduct for students with exceptional
needs, without involving the Exceptional Education Department
Head. It seemed as if they were afraid of making a mistake or
damaging the child. In addition, it was necessary for the Exceptional
Education Department Head to take an active role in maintaining
order in the school, in general, the lunch room, the halls, as
well as disciplining general education students. The Exceptional
Education Department had to cease being an entity unto itself.
It became apparent that the department, the staff and students
were a part of the school and were expected to follow the same
rules as everyone else.

According to Exceptional Education Department Head, "Once
the regular education staff accepted the fact that the exceptional
learner could and was expected to function in an age-appropriate,
socially acceptable manner, BUT MOST OF ALL THAT WE WERE NOT GOING
AWAY, it was full steam ahead." The student with exceptional
needs could be found in every school function and most classrooms.
During this time the Exceptional Education Department Head frequently
addressed the staff. She would tell them of changes in special
education, the law and affect that it would have upon them. The
staff was free to ask questions during the presentation and they
were welcome to come to her office. As required, the special teachers
gave completed "mainstream forms" to regular education
teachers and were available to assist them whenever necessary.
Over a period of time the general education teachers stopped needing
or asking for help. Prior to addressing the staff as a whole,
the department head would brief her staff making certain that
they understood any and all changes. By doing this, each member
of the Exceptional Education Department became a resource person
as well as an advocate for the department and the students.
Despite these gains, the Exceptional Education Department still
relied on separate special education classes which special education
staff increasingly see as being less than effective. According
to the exceptional education department head, "I know we
have had one of the best programs in the city. And we have failed
these students. We must change special education as we know it
because it does not work."

With this conviction she gained information about inclusion,
talked with her colleagues who increasingly were supportive, and
looked for, and found, assistance outside the school district.
She has been successful in obtaining the assistance of faculty
from two local universities -- Wayne State University and the
University of Detroit. The University of Detroit is engaged in
an Eisenhower funded inservice grant for "inclusionary and
interdisciplinary education" with math and science teachers
that involves on-site training and technical assistance. Wayne
State University is collaborating in supporting overall planning
and training for the realignment of exceptional education staff
and for developing new options for supporting students with disabilities
as they make the transition from school to work.
Building a vision has been important in this process. Over the
years the exceptional education department staff have worked to
gradually develop a new vision of possibilities. Recently, the
exceptional education department head was supported in developing
a PATH (Planning alternative Tomorrow's with Hope) for her school
moving towards a vision of "multicultural inclusive education."
In the fall of 1997, special education staff together developed
a vision and beginning action plan for moving towards inclusive
education using the MAPS process (Making Action Plans). Finally,
a planning committee has been convened following a presentation
to the entire school staff. This committee is composed of school
and university staff and members of the community. These efforts
have been serving to engage all in the school in the change process.

Western High School is poised for a major change for the education
of students with disabilities. A team to plan for realignment
of exceptional education staff and training and support of teachers
has been formed. This school is moving towards a vision of multi-cultural
inclusive education and whole schooling and they expect such efforts
will provide help to students and even raise standardized test
scores for all students.

Northern Wisconsin: A Rural School Experience

In northern Wisconsin, rural schools also must address issues
of poverty, race, and availability of resources. Some school districts
in northern Wisconsin experience a higher poverty level than urban
districts (poverty being measured by the number of students who
qualify for free or reduced lunch programs). Racial tension is
also another factor that is common in both rural and urban schools
in Wisconsin. Although there are few African-Americans who live
in the rural regions of Wisconsin, there is a significant population
of American Indians, (due to the large number of reservations
in northern Wisconsin) and Asian-Americans who have settled in
central and northern Wisconsin. There is tremendous prejudice
and lack of acceptance of racial and cultural differences by those
who are European American and have lived in the north for generations.

In addition, the lack of resources available to children with
disabilities and their families who reside in rural Wisconsin
is shocking. Public transportation is nonexistent, health care
is poor or unavailable, and employment opportunities are nonexistent,
if one is not interested or able to farm, truck, or work in the
logging industry.

Despite these barriers, the small size and personal connection
of people in rural Wisconsin induce potential to facilitate important
innovations for effective inclusive education. One school district,
who experiences a high level of poverty and has developed vital
supports for quality inclusive education, is Gilman Elementary
School. Gilman WI, a small, rural community of 500 citizens, is
located in Northern Wisconsin on the edge of the Chequamegon National
Forest. Gilman has one elementary school and a combined middle-high
school which are all located in the same school structure. Gilman
is like many rural school districts in northern Wisconsin, in
which the entire school system, including district administrative
offices are located under one roof. The community at large is
predominantly a farming community, requiring that many students
(with and without disabilities) ride buses a significant distance
in order to attend school. The vast distances between students'
homes and the lack of transportation options really limits after
school involvement and makes school and community life in rural
Wisconsin an isolating experience for these children and their
families.

The beginning of inclusive education at Gilman Elementary emerged
approximately four years ago, when the elementary principal, began
a principal's math challenge class. The elementary principal and
a group of talented math students needed a space in the building
for their class. Due to an extreme lack of physical space, the
only space potentially available for the math challenge class
was the special education resource room. As the children entered
the room on the first day, they were reticent, didn't want to
sit in the desks, and would not touch anything in the classroom.
The school principal was shocked by their actions and attitudes,
and the many parent phone calls of concerns regarding the fact
that these students were learning in a "special education
classroom." The principal immediately felt the need to take
action. He said, "If this is how general education students
felt about a "special education classroom", how did
they feel about their classmates with "exceptional educational
needs?" Thus, the principal and a few teachers began developing
a school vision, philosophy, and school-wide plan in which all
students could have their unique needs met within the general
education classroom.

At Gilman Elementary, inclusion is "the practice of delivering
instruction to all students in a manner that meets their individual
needs and gives them the opportunity to develop to their full
potential, academically and socially, by utilizing the team teaching
of general and special teachers, using diverse teaching strategies
for diverse learning styles, individualizing instruction, and
using flexible grouping" (A. Arnold, 1995). As a result of
their school-wide vision and philosophy, Gilman Elementary re-aligned
the teaching staff and created a school-wide block schedule as
two specific strategies for achieving sustaining success with
their inclusive education goals. These two strategies (i.e.,
re-alignment of staff and block scheduling) had a tremendous impact
on student learning without requiring any additional fiscal or
personnel resources. More importantly, changes in the school-wide
schedule and re-alignment of teaching staff were made in order
to better meet the needs of struggling students and to provide
greater acceptance of all students in a small, rural inclusive
school environment.

The Gilman staff created an inclusive school program by developing
and implementing five key program features. First, the staff looked
at ALL available teaching staff currently working at Gilman Elementary
and designed a staff structure where one "specialist"
is assigned to each grade-level team as a support to all students
with exceptional education needs at that specific grade level.
The "specialists" came from the positions of:
Title 1 teacher, gifted coordinator/reading specialist, guidance
counselor, speech/language therapist, and one special education
teacher (with cross-categorical experience). These specialists
are committed to team-teaching with their grade-level team members
everyday for a minimum of one-half day.

The second program feature focused on each team member (two
general educator and one specialist) having equal responsibility
for EVERY student (with and without disabilities) at their grade
level. In essence, these three teachers were all individually
and collectively responsible for approximately 50-60 students.
Furthermore, the grade-level teaching team was as responsible
for the success of their students with exceptional educational
needs as they were for all typical grade-level students. The specialist's
role was not to function as a teaching assistant rather every
teacher's instructional time was used mainly in direct delivery
of instruction to students.

Third, the teaching staff also redesigned the school-wide schedule
in order to create a block of "sacred time" during
which there were absolutely no interruptions. With a few very
rare exceptions, this block of sacred time was adhered
to every day of the year. During sacred time, the grade
level has 100% of their students for 100% of the time. No music
art, physical education, or computer classes are scheduled during
this time. No student is pulled out for speech therapy, remedial
reading, counseling, or any other special individualized instruction.
Sacred time is for grade-level teaching teams to go full
speed ahead in teaching the core subject material without interruptions.

The fourth program feature focused on the creation of planning
time for grade-level teaching teams and the team of specialists.
Due to the creation of the block schedule, each grade-level team
now had 90 minutes of planning time each week. This ninety-minute
team planning block is in addition to the designated amount of
preparation time each teacher was required to receive as specified
in their teaching contract. In addition to the grade-level team
planning time and the regular contracted preparation time, specialists
had a planning block in which they met for sixty minutes each
week to discuss specific student's needs, goals, and progress.
The major purpose of the special teacher's meeting was to communicate
with each other in order to check that the goals of each student's
IEP were being met.

The final components of the Gilman Inclusive Education program
were flexible instructional grouping and the utilization of instructional
space. At Gilman Elementary, instructional groupings of students
change frequently enough to eliminate the possibility of any stigma
being associated with which group a student was/is in. Similarly,
all students frequently work with each of the three teachers so
that no stigma is associated with the special teachers either.
The same is true of instructional space and room usage. There
is nothing unusual about a student learning in any particular
room or space since all students work in those rooms at one time
or other. The three teachers even rotate and teach in each of
the rooms (including the specialist's small room or office) so
that the students will not associate a certain teacher with any
specific room or space. Consequently, any student (with or without
an exceptional educational need) works with any teacher, in any
room, with any grouping of classmates, without the stigma of being
"different."

In the early stages of development and implementation of the
Gilman vision and strategies, the Gilman staff became connected
with the Wisconsin School Inclusion Project, a state systems-wide
change project. The elementary principal said, "We really
didn't know what inclusive education was, we just wanted to do
what was best for all kids when we came to understand that the
mission and goals of the Wisconsin School Inclusion Project
matched our vision of a good school at Gilman." Consequently,
through the project, Gilman Elementary was quickly connected to
additional resources and support at the university and state level.
In turn, Gilman Elementary offered their assistance by accepting
visitors from other schools and presenting the Gilman model at
the state-wide Leadership Institute on Inclusive Education and
the Conference on Inclusion in Rural Schools. Due to their vision,
efforts, and connection to the university and state-wide agencies,
many rural and urban schools in Wisconsin have learned specific
strategies for creating their own inclusive education programs.
Although Gilman Elementary continues to refine their inclusive
education program with the support and assistance from university
faculty, administration and community members, Gilman Elementary
is one example of a small, poor, rural school community that took
a risk, embraced change, and created a unique inclusive school
community through the re-alignment of their existing resources.

Barriers and Resources in Poor Rural and Urban Schools
and Communities

Many barriers and challenges exist in all communities, particularly
in poor communities, when implementing a school-wide vision for
effective inclusive education and whole schooling practices. Such
barriers exist both in the school itself and the community of
which the school is a part.

An impoverished urban school classroom consists of many students
without identified disabilities, who are not succeeding in school.
Society continues to be plagued with drug abuse, gangs, teen-age
pregnancy, crime, and deadly diseases (Shapiro, J.P., Loeb, P.,
& Bowermaster, D., 1993). Other social problems provide a
framework that makes movement towards inclusive education and
"whole schooling" practices very difficult. There are
high degrees of segregation on the basis of, socio-economic status,
race, and ability. Prisons, alternative schools, nursing homes,
high-rise low-income housing units all abound in American cities.
This sets a mental model of segregation. In addition, in many
neighborhoods, people are afraid and have a sense of being overwhelmed
by problems. In some neighborhoods, people feel unsafe due to
crime and violence. The multiple problems that face neighborhoods
(crime, violence, economic devastation) and schools (violence,
hunger, abuse, class size, authoritarian and non-responsive administration)
make inclusive education and whole schooling practices often seem
like an unaffordable luxury. Ultimately, the school, media, universities,
and people in poor neighborhoods themselves adopt a deficit mentality
where they are conditioned to see only their problems and deficits,
rather than strengths and resources within themselves, their schools,
and their communities (Anyon, 1997; Kretzmann & McKnight,
1993).

Social problems also exist in impoverished rural schools and
the small, isolated communities in which they are located. Lack
of quality health care, post-secondary education opportunities,
social services resources, and public transportation add tremendous
stress and hardship for families, especially those with children
experiencing disabilities, who desperately need those services.
Unemployment also abounds for those who do not farm or are not
employable in the trucking or logging industry. In addition, these
impoverished, rural schools have a very difficult time attracting
teachers and administrators who are willing to live in an isolated,
impoverished, rural community. Finally, rural schools are not
insulated from violence, abuse, deadly diseases and teenage pregnancy.
Communities which experience high rates of unemployment, rely
on limited natural resources as their only means for economic
survival, and are isolated from extended family and neighbors,
resort to violence and abuse when they can no longer cope with
day to day life.

Within these impoverished rural and urban schools, autocratic
and bureaucratic structures can make the efforts of local teachers
and community members very difficult. Tension often exists between
teachers and the school administration, and between the community
and the school system. Difficulties also arise due to the tensions
that exist between the unprepared teachers and the students. Teachers
may be unprepared to teach students with a vast range of learning
differences and thus students are sentenced to years of low expectations
and failure (D'Alonzo, VanLeeuwen, & Giordano, 1997). Teachers
may exhibit negative attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities
(Haberman, 1997). In addition, they may perceive the challenge
and stress of educating an already diverse and "needy"
population of general education students as difficult enough.
To be asked or expected to accept further challenges in often
resented (D'Alonzo, VanLeeuwen, & Giordano, 1997). In such
a setting, all in the system may feel embattled and lacking supports
on a daily basis. Taking on new challenges and engaging in risk
can be very threatening in such an environment.

These barriers and other social problems provide a framework
that makes movement toward inclusive education and "whole
schooling" practices very difficult for poor rural and urban
schools. However, such communities and schools have many valuable
assets and resources that often go unrecognized. In many poor
communities, numerous people have been working for many years
to improve their community, people who have demonstrated commitment,
skill, and perseverance. People with disabilities and their families,
themselves, can enrich the community with their experiences, skills,
and perseverance. The combined resources of schools, businesses,
and community organizations represent assets that can provide
a foundation for school and community development. By recognizing
and building on such school and community assets, it is possible
to utilize effective strategies and harness human potential to
create a whole inclusive school community.

Strategies for Change: Overcoming Barriers and Achieving
the Vision

How can some impoverished schools build a successful whole
inclusive school community? In an interview conducted for NBC
Dateline's story on inclusion in 1994, the principal of Boston's
O'Hearn Elementary School stated that "You cannot just do
inclusion. You have to be a good school first." Inclusive
schooling is more important, not less, in poor communities. In
inclusive schools, students with and without disabilities learn
to work with one another, which is vital in any rural or urban
community. As such, inclusive schools can encourage social responsibility
among students and provide a small step toward eliminating prejudice
in our society. Teaching acceptance and appreciation for diversity
is an important skill for producing a more just community. Perhaps
most critical, in poor schools, inclusion provides students with
concrete opportunities to engage in issues of exclusion, injustice,
support and caring that are at the center of student's developing
a sense of hope for their own lives. Drawing on the educational
and community change literature we provide these guiding principles
for building inclusive education in poor schools and communities.

First and foremost, people must be willing to take risks to
create a new vision for a better future. People who are willing
to work in this proactive way must find and support one another
throughout the process. This requires personal and professional
support that focuses on developing organizational infrastructures
to assist in implementing the vision.

Second, people seeking change for inclusive education in poor
communities must focus on the "whole" by creating a
better school and community for ALL children and their families,
not simply children with disabilities. Consequently, it means
we understand the whole at some level and how inclusive education
fits into the total schema of things. The whole schooling framework
(referring to Table 1) was developed to assist in this process.

Third, as we work in poor communities, we must build long-term
relationships with colleagues, families, community leaders, and
university-based faculty in order to gather support and ensure
commitment for inclusive education. We must seek to organize methods
of providing support to one another linking personal and organizational
resources (e.g. within a school, teachers helping teachers, special
education coordinators reaching out to their colleagues; schools
linking to university faculty; schools connecting to leaders in
the community). As we build resources, develop pilot efforts,
change advocates will take some risks, sometimes challenging the
system. However, this must be done carefully and with great thought.

Fourth, it is important to develop a mutual working relationship
with university-based teacher education programs in order to effectively
support educators and prepare future educators to embrace the
challenges in poor schools and meet the unique needs of those
within the school and community. If inclusive education and quality
schooling are to be a reality in resource-poor schools, they require
truly effective teachers who have the necessary skills, knowledge,
values, and attitudes. Teachers are needed who have an understanding
of the broader vision of community of which the school is a part;
are connected to the community; participate in community activities;
are willing and interested in visiting student's homes when needed;
have commitments to children in poor areas and see in them, their
families and their neighborhoods assets, not just deficiencies.
Schools in poor areas need teachers who can look at a poor community
and recognize the new paint on the old house or the mural painted
by a local high school student on the side of a local bar, as
signs of life and vibrancy. Schools in poor communities need teachers
who can communicate with families living in poverty, (especially
when they feel intimidated by the school) and help them feel comfortable,
welcomed, and valued as contributing partners in the education
and development of their children.

How do we do this? Martin Haberman (1997) states that 2/3 of
the success of preparing star urban teachers working in poor areas
is not preparation at all, but selection. Selecting people to
enter non-traditional teacher training programs who are from the
area, are older, have experience and a commitment to the areas
in which they will work are the key elements to success. Beyond
this he also suggests that experience in such settings with support
from faculty and local people is critical. University faculty
interested in poor schools must connect with one another in order
to work together in building partnerships and supportive learning
communities. Together they can take the resources of university
faculty and students in training into poor rural and urban schools,
providing them with direction, support, and guidance in the process.

Finally, we must also realize that schools are a part of the
larger community and are highly influenced by conditions in the
larger community. Thus, we must work to link education, economic
development and human services in a holistic manner. Throughout
the country there is a growing movement of "community building"
that recognizes the interdependence of all sectors in rebuilding
the health of impoverished areas. As Anyon (1997) indicates,
"without such efforts to rebuild the entire community, where
schools link their resources to community development efforts
and where such efforts enrich the school, reforms of any type
run a strong risk of failure." What are some specific strategies
and resources that can be effectively utilized to overcome the
multiple barriers and move us closer to building these inclusive
school environments? Several ideas emerge as common strategies
that are reasonable to implement and successful for long-lasting
change .

Realign existing school staff to reduce the overall pupil-teacher
ratio.

Re-design the whole school schedule to create team planning
time and minimize interruptions in daily instruction.

Utilize technology, such as internet access, electronic mail,
and teleconferencing in order to have affordable ready access
to current information, electronic support groups, and professional
expertise.

Seek and develop working relationships with other schools,
professionals, agencies and community members who embrace inclusive
education and have taken action as change agents.

The rural and urban school examples described earlier paint
pictures of what is possible when we join together to formulate
a positive vision, develop and implement strategies for overcoming
multiple barriers, effectively utilize existing resources for
the benefit of the whole school and the community at large, and
harness our human potential to create lasting change. Given these
examples, it is evident that both commonalities and differences
exist between poor rural and urban schools as they engage in the
process of building whole inclusive schools .

High degrees of neglect and abuse due to the over-riding
"survival of fittest" way of life.

Transiency due to lack of employment opportunities and affordable
housing

Differences

Change can occur at a greater speed in a small rural school
where all teachers, learners, and administrators are under one
roof.

More community resources are available in urban areas, as
well as public transportation to access those resources.

Informal networks of relationships are often stronger in
rural areas and can be more easily accessed in support of schools.
_________________________________________________________________________________

As can be seen, the commonalities that exist due to poverty
are more prevalent than the differences between rural and urban
schools. Thus, our belief that poor schools (across rural and
urban settings) can learn and benefit from each other's inclusionary
efforts is confirmed. The common ground that exists between poor
rural and urban schools parallels the very notion of inclusion
­ that students with and without exceptional educational needs
support each other as they learn together and from each other.
Children across race, gender, disability, and culture (including
the "culture of poverty") have more in common than not
in common. It is vital that our efforts to build whole inclusive
school communities in poor rural and urban schools capitalize
on the strengths of staff, available resources, and support of
the larger community, just as inclusive educators strive to focus
on the strengths, interests, learning styles, and abilities of
students with learning difficulties; rather than focusing on the
barriers within schools or the limitations within students experiencing
disabilities within those schools.

Poor rural and urban schools can also learn much from their
differences. For example, given the impoverished conditions in
which all these schools must effectively function, the uniqueness
of a small rural school district (all within one building) allows
for greater speed at which change can occur. Less layers of administration
can hasten the decision making and implementation processes. Conversely,
given the same conditions of poverty, a large urban district is
slowed down and many times halted in the decision and implementation
processes. Can poor urban schools consult with rural school districts
to develop processes for hastening the decision-making processes?
It is vital that we look at our commonalities and uniqueness
in order to effectively respond to the gifts and needs of the
students and teaching staff, in particular, and the neighborhoods
and communities, at large.

The Challenge to Create Inclusive Schools in Poor
Communities

What can and should be done in more communities and states
to strengthen and support efforts in poor rural and urban schools
like Gilman Elementary and Western International High School?
Where might we start? Here are some suggestions to consider.

We believe that:

1. Educators, university personnel, and advocates for children
with differences (across race, culture, or disability) must come
together to form alliances to build quality, whole, inclusive
schools.

2. Forums for dialogue at the local, state, and national levels
are critically needed in order to join forces with those who are
concerned with quality urban and rural schooling in impoverished
areas

3. University personnel and/or school and community leaders
must approach state departments to specifically target research,
training, and technical assistance funds to support poor schools

4. Ongoing work is necessary in linking best educational practices
with inclusive education. As a result we have developed the whole
schooling framework (referring to Figure 1) and recently established
the "Whole Schooling Consortium" as a grassroots collaboration
among schools and universities who are interested in promoting
and implementing the full range of whole schooling practices

5. We must develop ways to link positive school and community
development. As the distribution of wealth is becoming more polarized,
poor people are under increasing oppression. In this context,
new "community building" approaches are being implemented
in poor communities throughout the U.S. in which residents harness
their own resources and build from capacity rather than deficit
(Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J., 1995). We must develop ways
to link such school and community building efforts.

6. As poor rural and urban schools move toward whole inclusive
schooling, it is important to collect documentation of the effective
use of minimal resources, share those strategies and stories with
others, encourage patience and risk-taking throughout the change
process, and obtain university and community support.

In this article, we have attempted to raise awareness regarding
several essential elements: (1) articulating a vision of whole
inclusive schooling for poor schools, (2) providing examples of
several poor schools who are in the process of implementing these
strategies, (3) identifying the multiple barriers that often impede
that vision, (4) developing strategies for overcoming the barriers
and achieving the vision, (5) articulating the commonalities and
differences between poor rural and urban schools, and (6) providing
strategies for embracing the challenge to create more whole inclusive
school communities in rural and urban areas. If we care about
children in poor schools and communities, and maintain our focus
that the children's needs must always come first, then collectively
we must embrace the challenge and commit ourselves to students
in all communities. Just as in marriage, we must commit, for better
or worse, to building inclusive school communities.